2015 (6) TMI 117 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Detention of vehicle - goods are transported from Tamil Nadu to Andhra Pradesh without valid records i.e. original invoice copy of the machine - Held that - Since the original invoice has been held by the bank, the petitioner was not in a position to produce the original invoice. However, the petitioner has produced a copy of the invoice and all other relevant documents to the second respondent. Therefore, I do not find any justification in the Detention Notice issued by the second respondent and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the detention notice, dated 2.5.2015, issued by the second respondent is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP Y 5372 with Hydraulic Excavator within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Mandamus to release detained vehicle with Hydraulic Excavator due to lack of original invoice copy.

Analysis:
1. Mandamus for Release of Detained Vehicle: The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondents to release a vehicle carrying a Hydraulic Excavator for repair purposes. The vehicle was detained by the second respondent at a check post, alleging transportation of goods without valid records. The petitioner explained that the original invoice was held by the bank, which was proven through a certificate issued by the bank. The court noted that the petitioner provided a copy of the invoice and relevant documents to the second respondent, as the original was with the bank. Consequently, the court found no justification in the detention notice and quashed it. The respondents were directed to release the vehicle within a week from the date of the order.

2. Original Invoice Issue: The key contention revolved around the unavailability of the original invoice of the Hydraulic Excavator, which was held by the bank that provided a loan for the purchase. The petitioner, in possession of a duplicate invoice, faced detention of the vehicle due to the lack of the original document. The court, upon examining the certificate from the bank confirming the possession of the original invoice, concluded that the detention was unjustified. The court emphasized the inability of the petitioner to produce the original invoice due to it being held by the bank, thereby leading to the quashing of the detention notice.

3. Legal Justification for Release: The court's decision to quash the detention notice was based on the legal principle that the petitioner had fulfilled their obligation by providing a copy of the invoice and other relevant documents to the second respondent. The court highlighted the certificate from the bank as crucial evidence supporting the petitioner's claim regarding the unavailability of the original invoice. By applying the principles of natural justice and considering the urgency of repairing the machine for operational effectiveness, the court ordered the release of the vehicle with the Hydraulic Excavator, emphasizing the lack of justification for the detention.

4. Final Disposal of Writ Petition: The writ petition was disposed of with no costs imposed on either party. The court's decision to grant the mandamus for the release of the detained vehicle was based on the legal reasoning that the petitioner had substantiated their claim regarding the unavailability of the original invoice, which was crucial for the repair of the Hydraulic Excavator. The court's order for the release within a specific timeframe aimed to address the urgency of the repair process and uphold the petitioner's rights in the matter.